URGENT: Process to select ALAC representative to AoC Review
I am distributing this on behalf of Cheryl. Since the last ALAC meeting and the submission of the approved ALAC comments on the Affirmation of Commitments review process, there have been numerous discussions at many levels on the review process. From an At-Large perspective, we need to decide how we will address the selection of one or more people to be candidates for the first review team - the one assessing ICANN's accountability, transparency and support of the interests of global Internet users. Attached is a document that summarizes the issues and identifies what decision we must make. Because it includes a lot of background information, it is not short. The important issues are listed at the end, and most importantly, it includes a series of steps that we must take WITHOUT DELAY. For your convenience, the text of the document is also appended to this e-mail. If we do not act quickly, we will lose the ability to effectively participate in the very important review. PLEASE REVIEW IMMEDIATELY, AND DECIDE IN WHAT WAY YOU NEED TO INVOLVE THE REST OF YOUR RALO SO THAT WE CAN EFFECTIVELY MAKE DECISIONS NEXT WEEK. Alan --------------- Proposed ALAC Process for the "endorsement" of candidates responding to the Call for Accountability & Transparency (A&T) Review Team applicants (further to the discussion at the January 26th ALAC Meeting on this matter). Background · The Affirmation of Commitments (AoC - http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm) calls for several reviews to be carried out periodically, with the first review being one on ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users (for short Accountability and transparency A&T). The AoC requires that this review be concluded no later than December 31, 2010. · The review team will include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the Chair of the Board of ICANN, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the DOC, representatives of the relevant ICANN Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations and independent experts. · Composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the Chair of the Board of ICANN. · The team composition will be published for public comment, but the draft review proposal does not seem to allow for changes based on these comments. · The Call for Applicants for membership in the review team was issued on January 13, 2010 - http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/call-for-applicants-11jan10-en.p.... · The draft review proposal calls for one representative of the ALAC. - Our comments suggested that one was insufficient. We know that other organizations have made similar comments. At this point there is no indication that it will change, but it may. - Note the term representative defined as a person who has been chosen to act or make decisions on behalf of another person or a group of people. · The draft review proposal requires that any candidate to be considered for the review team be endorsed by the group they are to represent. · The draft review proposal requires that applications be submitted directly to ICANN. - We have been assured that we will receive copies of any such applications. · The original deadline for submitting applications was February 17th at 23:59 UTC with the intent of selecting the final review team by February 20th. The submission deadline has since been extended to February 22nd and we have been told that the deadline for us submitting endorsements is March 1, 2010 at 23:59 UTC. · The call for applications did not allow for any ALAC-specific criteria, but since that time, the GNSO indicated that they may want to collect additional information on their behalf. · Any people who we endorse but who are not selected for the A&T review will be kept on file and may be appointed to a later review without further consultation with us. · The GAC and the Board are given the courtesy of being represented on the review team by their Chair or a delegate (it is unclear when they must decide whether they themselves are participating or replaced by a delegate), but the ACs and SOs are not. Current Situation As of February 11th we are told that there have been just two applications. One is from a Kurt Snyder. He is not currently affiliated with any At-Large entity, but (according to his e-mail to the ALAC Chair I have been looking for ways to volunteer with ICANN and I believe this would be a fantastic opportunity for me. Moreover, my background is well suited for such an endeavor. I am an attorney with technology and assessment experience. Mr. Snyder apparently incorrectly interpreted a reply from the ALAC Chair as implying that we had already formally endorsed him. This has been corrected. The second is from Christopher Wilkinson, an At-Large participant from Europe. Wolf has sent an e-mail saying that EURALO supports his candidature. Christopher has a long and illustrious history with ICANN. He is a member of EURALO/ISOC Chapter of Wallonia (Belgium) and is a former EU representative to the GAC, former GAC vice-chair, and former Secretary of the GAC. We have argued that the time-frame is unreasonable, particularly given the hierarchical structure of At-Large, but there is no indication that it will be altered. It is unclear to what extent our representative, once selected, will be allowed to interact with us once he/she is appointed to the review team. Although not planned for the purpose, we have an ALAC meeting scheduled for February 23, 2010, a few hours after the close of the application period. In communications to date, we have assumed that we will publicly post the submitted information of all applicants seeking our endorsements on out wiki/web site (URL to be determined). Decision Requirements · Do we wish to endorse all applicants to want to represent us? · If not, how do we select one or more? · Regardless of the above, do we want to indicate an order of preference? · If we do any sort of selection, what criteria do we use? Specifically, how do we recognize the person(s) who we will endorse to represent us. To what extent should prior knowledge of ICANN, prior involvement with ICANN, and prior involvement with the formally defined At-Large Community be factored in? · Given the time frame, to what extent can the entire At-Large Community - the ALSs, RALOs and even the entire ALAC MEANINGFULLY participate? · To what extent do we wish to require ALAC specific information from the candidates? If any, what? Note that the inclusion of the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the US Department of Commerce sets the tone for this group it is a HIGH-level group of people. · To what extent, at this late date, do we issue a further call for applications? · Do we wish our endorsed but not accepted candidates to be held for future reviews? · Do we want to consider the option of equity with the GAC and the Board by allowing our Chair or her/his delegate to participate in the process? Among other merits, it makes the representative responsible to and answerable to the ALAC and implicitly At-Large? *Immediate Action* The earliest that we can formally act on these questions is during our ALAC meeting of February 23rd. That will be too late to solicit applications or additional ALAC-specific information. It is therefore suggested that IMMEDIATELY: 1. All RALOs, through whatever mechanism they choose, should select and forward any preferred candidates to the ALAC and to the designated ICANN address. The earlier this can be done, the better, but if ALAC members will have the time to adequately review the documentation, they must be received no later than the end of February 20th. The candidates must follow the specific requirements specified in the Call for Applicants PLUS must include a statement of why they believe: a. they are in a position to fairly access ICANNs accountability, transparency and the focus on the interests of global Internet users; b. they will be able to do this from the perspective of the global ICANN At-Large Community and the ALAC. 2. All RALOs, through whatever mechanism they choose, decide how their representatives can help the ALAC come to closure on the above decisions on February 23rd. We do NOT have the option of deferring these decisions. If we do not formally make them in a timely manner, we may lose our say in the process of selecting an ALAC representative and we lose our ability to adequately participate in the review. 3. We should schedule a tentative ALAC meeting on Friday, February 26 to finalize our endorsements in case we do not do so at our ALAC meeting on February 23rd.
Dear ALAN Since my personal position would be to have the Chair ( already elected as our representative) to represent the ALAC in this important group, I would like you to rephrase the end of this paragraph below. May be not clear to all not following the document, if this means just that the doc previously "suggest" both chairs can be the representatives and hasn't suggest to the AC and SO, OR that both CAN have their chairs acting as their representatives and the others NOT. Since the majority of at-large group are not English native, I don't want people reading quickly the text misinterpreting the concept. thanks The GAC and the Board are given the courtesy of being represented on the review team by their Chair or a delegate (it is unclear when they must decide whether they themselves are participating or replaced by a delegate), but the ACs and SOs are not. Vanda Scartezini NEXTi_v1.jpg an ICANN ALS tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 mob:+ 55 11 8181.1464 www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:46 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] URGENT: Process to select ALAC representative to AoC Review Importance: High I am distributing this on behalf of Cheryl. Since the last ALAC meeting and the submission of the approved ALAC comments on the Affirmation of Commitments review process, there have been numerous discussions at many levels on the review process. From an At-Large perspective, we need to decide how we will address the selection of one or more people to be candidates for the first review team - the one assessing ICANN's accountability, transparency and support of the interests of global Internet users. Attached is a document that summarizes the issues and identifies what decision we must make. Because it includes a lot of background information, it is not short. The important issues are listed at the end, and most importantly, it includes a series of steps that we must take WITHOUT DELAY. For your convenience, the text of the document is also appended to this e-mail. If we do not act quickly, we will lose the ability to effectively participate in the very important review. PLEASE REVIEW IMMEDIATELY, AND DECIDE IN WHAT WAY YOU NEED TO INVOLVE THE REST OF YOUR RALO SO THAT WE CAN EFFECTIVELY MAKE DECISIONS NEXT WEEK. Alan --------------- Proposed ALAC Process for the "endorsement" of candidates responding to the Call for Accountability & Transparency (A&T) Review Team applicants (further to the discussion at the January 26th ALAC Meeting on this matter). Background . The Affirmation of Commitments (AoC - http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm) calls for several reviews to be carried out periodically, with the first review being one on ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users (for short Accountability and transparency - A&T). The AoC requires that this review be concluded no later than December 31, 2010. . The review team will include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the Chair of the Board of ICANN, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the DOC, representatives of the relevant ICANN Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations and independent experts. . Composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the Chair of the Board of ICANN. . The team composition will be published for public comment, but the draft review proposal does not seem to allow for changes based on these comments. . The Call for Applicants for membership in the review team was issued on January 13, 2010 - http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/call-for-applicants-11jan10-en.p df. . The draft review proposal calls for one representative of the ALAC. - Our comments suggested that one was insufficient. We know that other organizations have made similar comments. At this point there is no indication that it will change, but it may. - Note the term "representative" - defined as a person who has been chosen to act or make decisions on behalf of another person or a group of people. . The draft review proposal requires that any candidate to be considered for the review team be "endorsed" by the group they are to represent. . The draft review proposal requires that applications be submitted directly to ICANN. - We have been assured that we will receive copies of any such applications. . The original deadline for submitting applications was February 17th at 23:59 UTC with the intent of selecting the final review team by February 20th. The submission deadline has since been extended to February 22nd and we have been told that the deadline for us submitting endorsements is March 1, 2010 at 23:59 UTC. . The call for applications did not allow for any ALAC-specific criteria, but since that time, the GNSO indicated that they may want to collect additional information on their behalf. . Any people who we endorse but who are not selected for the A&T review will be kept on file and may be appointed to a later review without further consultation with us. . The GAC and the Board are given the courtesy of being represented on the review team by their Chair or a delegate (it is unclear when they must decide whether they themselves are participating or replaced by a delegate), but the ACs and SOs are not. Current Situation As of February 11th we are told that there have been just two applications. One is from a Kurt Snyder. He is not currently affiliated with any At-Large entity, but (according to his e-mail to the ALAC Chair "I have been looking for ways to volunteer with ICANN and I believe this would be a fantastic opportunity for me. Moreover, my background is well suited for such an endeavor. I am an attorney with technology and assessment experience." Mr. Snyder apparently incorrectly interpreted a reply from the ALAC Chair as implying that we had already formally endorsed him. This has been corrected. The second is from Christopher Wilkinson, an At-Large participant from Europe. Wolf has sent an e-mail saying that EURALO supports his candidature. Christopher has a long and illustrious history with ICANN. He is a member of EURALO/ISOC Chapter of Wallonia (Belgium) and is a former EU representative to the GAC, former GAC vice-chair, and former Secretary of the GAC. We have argued that the time-frame is unreasonable, particularly given the hierarchical structure of At-Large, but there is no indication that it will be altered. It is unclear to what extent our representative, once selected, will be allowed to interact with us once he/she is appointed to the review team. Although not planned for the purpose, we have an ALAC meeting scheduled for February 23, 2010, a few hours after the close of the application period. In communications to date, we have assumed that we will publicly post the submitted information of all applicants seeking our endorsements on out wiki/web site (URL to be determined). Decision Requirements . Do we wish to "endorse" all applicants to want to represent us? . If not, how do we select one or more? . Regardless of the above, do we want to indicate an order of preference? . If we do any sort of selection, what criteria do we use? Specifically, how do we recognize the person(s) who we will endorse to represent us. To what extent should prior knowledge of ICANN, prior involvement with ICANN, and prior involvement with the formally defined At-Large Community be factored in? . Given the time frame, to what extent can the entire At-Large Community - the ALSs, RALOs and even the entire ALAC MEANINGFULLY participate? . To what extent do we wish to require ALAC specific information from the candidates? If any, what? Note that the inclusion of the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the US Department of Commerce sets the tone for this group - it is a HIGH-level group of people. . To what extent, at this late date, do we issue a further call for applications? . Do we wish our endorsed but not accepted candidates to be held for future reviews? . Do we want to consider the option of equity with the GAC and the Board by allowing our Chair or her/his delegate to participate in the process? Among other merits, it makes the representative responsible to and answerable to the ALAC and implicitly At-Large? *Immediate Action* The earliest that we can formally act on these questions is during our ALAC meeting of February 23rd. That will be too late to solicit applications or additional ALAC-specific information. It is therefore suggested that IMMEDIATELY: 1. All RALOs, through whatever mechanism they choose, should select and forward any preferred candidates to the ALAC and to the designated ICANN address. The earlier this can be done, the better, but if ALAC members will have the time to adequately review the documentation, they must be received no later than the end of February 20th. The candidates must follow the specific requirements specified in the Call for Applicants PLUS must include a statement of why they believe: a. they are in a position to fairly access ICANN's accountability, transparency and the focus on the interests of global Internet users; b. they will be able to do this from the perspective of the global ICANN At-Large Community and the ALAC. 2. All RALOs, through whatever mechanism they choose, decide how their representatives can help the ALAC come to closure on the above decisions on February 23rd. We do NOT have the option of deferring these decisions. If we do not formally make them in a timely manner, we may lose our say in the process of selecting an ALAC representative and we lose our ability to adequately participate in the review. 3. We should schedule a tentative ALAC meeting on Friday, February 26 to finalize our endorsements in case we do not do so at our ALAC meeting on February 23rd.
To be clear, what I was trying to say was: - The AoC places the GAC Chair and the Board Chair on the review team. - Either chair can name a delegate in their place (but it is unclear when they need to name this delegate - before the selection process (starting on Mar 1), or after) - The SOs and ACs are only allowed to endorse specific people (with names). Does that make it any better? Alan At 16/02/2010 06:08 AM, Vanda UOL wrote:
Dear ALAN
Since my personal position would be to have the Chair ( already elected as our representative) to represent the ALAC in this important group, I would like you to rephrase the end of this paragraph below. May be not clear to all not following the document, if this means just that the doc previously suggest both chairs can be the representatives and hasnt suggest to the AC and SO, OR that both CAN have their chairs acting as their representatives and the others NOT. Since the majority of at-large group are not English native, I dont want people reading quickly the text misinterpreting the concept. thanks
The GAC and the Board are given the courtesy of being represented on the review team by their Chair or a delegate (it is unclear when they must decide whether they themselves are participating or replaced by a delegate), but the ACs and SOs are not.
Vanda Scartezini NEXTi_v1.jpg
an ICANN ALS tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 mob:+ 55 11 8181.1464 www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:46 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] URGENT: Process to select ALAC representative to AoC Review Importance: High
I am distributing this on behalf of Cheryl.
Since the last ALAC meeting and the submission of the approved ALAC comments on the Affirmation of Commitments review process, there have been numerous discussions at many levels on the review process. From an At-Large perspective, we need to decide how we will address the selection of one or more people to be candidates for the first review team - the one assessing ICANN's accountability, transparency and support of the interests of global Internet users.
Attached is a document that summarizes the issues and identifies what decision we must make. Because it includes a lot of background information, it is not short. The important issues are listed at the end, and most importantly, it includes a series of steps that we must take WITHOUT DELAY. For your convenience, the text of the document is also appended to this e-mail.
If we do not act quickly, we will lose the ability to effectively participate in the very important review.
PLEASE REVIEW IMMEDIATELY, AND DECIDE IN WHAT WAY YOU NEED TO INVOLVE THE REST OF YOUR RALO SO THAT WE CAN EFFECTIVELY MAKE DECISIONS NEXT WEEK.
Alan
---------------
Proposed ALAC Process for the "endorsement" of candidates responding to the Call for Accountability & Transparency (A&T) Review Team applicants (further to the discussion at the January 26th ALAC Meeting on this matter).
Background
· The Affirmation of Commitments (AoC - http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm) calls for several reviews to be carried out periodically, with the first review being one on ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users (for short Accountability and transparency A&T). The AoC requires that this review be concluded no later than December 31, 2010. · The review team will include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the Chair of the Board of ICANN, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the DOC, representatives of the relevant ICANN Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations and independent experts. · Composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the Chair of the Board of ICANN. · The team composition will be published for public comment, but the draft review proposal does not seem to allow for changes based on these comments. · The Call for Applicants for membership in the review team was issued on January 13, 2010 - http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/call-for-applicants-11jan10-en.p.... · The draft review proposal calls for one representative of the ALAC. - Our comments suggested that one was insufficient. We know that other organizations have made similar comments. At this point there is no indication that it will change, but it may. - Note the term representative defined as a person who has been chosen to act or make decisions on behalf of another person or a group of people. · The draft review proposal requires that any candidate to be considered for the review team be endorsed by the group they are to represent. · The draft review proposal requires that applications be submitted directly to ICANN. - We have been assured that we will receive copies of any such applications. · The original deadline for submitting applications was February 17th at 23:59 UTC with the intent of selecting the final review team by February 20th. The submission deadline has since been extended to February 22nd and we have been told that the deadline for us submitting endorsements is March 1, 2010 at 23:59 UTC. · The call for applications did not allow for any ALAC-specific criteria, but since that time, the GNSO indicated that they may want to collect additional information on their behalf. · Any people who we endorse but who are not selected for the A&T review will be kept on file and may be appointed to a later review without further consultation with us. · The GAC and the Board are given the courtesy of being represented on the review team by their Chair or a delegate (it is unclear when they must decide whether they themselves are participating or replaced by a delegate), but the ACs and SOs are not.
Current Situation
As of February 11th we are told that there have been just two applications.
One is from a Kurt Snyder. He is not currently affiliated with any At-Large entity, but (according to his e-mail to the ALAC Chair I have been looking for ways to volunteer with ICANN and I believe this would be a fantastic opportunity for me. Moreover, my background is well suited for such an endeavor. I am an attorney with technology and assessment experience. Mr. Snyder apparently incorrectly interpreted a reply from the ALAC Chair as implying that we had already formally endorsed him. This has been corrected.
The second is from Christopher Wilkinson, an At-Large participant from Europe. Wolf has sent an e-mail saying that EURALO supports his candidature. Christopher has a long and illustrious history with ICANN. He is a member of EURALO/ISOC Chapter of Wallonia (Belgium) and is a former EU representative to the GAC, former GAC vice-chair, and former Secretary of the GAC.
We have argued that the time-frame is unreasonable, particularly given the hierarchical structure of At-Large, but there is no indication that it will be altered.
It is unclear to what extent our representative, once selected, will be allowed to interact with us once he/she is appointed to the review team.
Although not planned for the purpose, we have an ALAC meeting scheduled for February 23, 2010, a few hours after the close of the application period.
In communications to date, we have assumed that we will publicly post the submitted information of all applicants seeking our endorsements on out wiki/web site (URL to be determined).
Decision Requirements
· Do we wish to endorse all applicants to want to represent us? · If not, how do we select one or more? · Regardless of the above, do we want to indicate an order of preference? · If we do any sort of selection, what criteria do we use? Specifically, how do we recognize the person(s) who we will endorse to represent us. To what extent should prior knowledge of ICANN, prior involvement with ICANN, and prior involvement with the formally defined At-Large Community be factored in? · Given the time frame, to what extent can the entire At-Large Community - the ALSs, RALOs and even the entire ALAC MEANINGFULLY participate? · To what extent do we wish to require ALAC specific information from the candidates? If any, what? Note that the inclusion of the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the US Department of Commerce sets the tone for this group it is a HIGH-level group of people. · To what extent, at this late date, do we issue a further call for applications? · Do we wish our endorsed but not accepted candidates to be held for future reviews? · Do we want to consider the option of equity with the GAC and the Board by allowing our Chair or her/his delegate to participate in the process? Among other merits, it makes the representative responsible to and answerable to the ALAC and implicitly At-Large?
*Immediate Action*
The earliest that we can formally act on these questions is during our ALAC meeting of February 23rd. That will be too late to solicit applications or additional ALAC-specific information.
It is therefore suggested that IMMEDIATELY:
1. All RALOs, through whatever mechanism they choose, should select and forward any preferred candidates to the ALAC and to the designated ICANN address. The earlier this can be done, the better, but if ALAC members will have the time to adequately review the documentation, they must be received no later than the end of February 20th. The candidates must follow the specific requirements specified in the Call for Applicants PLUS must include a statement of why they believe: a. they are in a position to fairly access ICANNs accountability, transparency and the focus on the interests of global Internet users; b. they will be able to do this from the perspective of the global ICANN At-Large Community and the ALAC. 2. All RALOs, through whatever mechanism they choose, decide how their representatives can help the ALAC come to closure on the above decisions on February 23rd. We do NOT have the option of deferring these decisions. If we do not formally make them in a timely manner, we may lose our say in the process of selecting an ALAC representative and we lose our ability to adequately participate in the review. 3. We should schedule a tentative ALAC meeting on Friday, February 26 to finalize our endorsements in case we do not do so at our ALAC meeting on February 23rd.
At 10:06 AM -0500 2/16/10, Alan Greenberg wrote:
To be clear, what I was trying to say was:
- The AoC places the GAC Chair and the Board Chair on the review team. - Either chair can name a delegate in their place (but it is unclear when they need to name this delegate - before the selection process (starting on Mar 1), or after) - The SOs and ACs are only allowed to endorse specific people (with names).
Does that make it any better?
I'm not clear what the following's suggesting? "Do we want to consider the option of equity with the GAC and the Board by allowing our Chair or her/his delegate to participate in the process? Among other merits, it makes the representative responsible to and answerable to the ALAC and implicitly At-Large?" Don't think it's a good idea to challenge the language of the AoC. We already have an ALAC delegate, why add confuse things? In the immediate action section, how about beginning by asking for a delay, many of the comments submitted have done so. You ask some good questions, but while considering them we should also take a step back and look again at the AoC. It's not just about reviews, there's a page and half and eight paragraphs before reviews are mentioned. We should take time now to look over what ICANN has committed to do as described in those first eight paragraphs. Ask what has been done (achieved in the months since September 30 last year), what is being done (in progress), and what is planned (in the strategic plan etc.) Only focusing on the review process as seems to be happening isn't a good idea. That said, the review on accountability and transparency particularly important. This review team will in effect be acting as the external oversight argued over again and again in various fora over the past six or seven or so years. I think we can expect it to be watched carefully by governments, including the U.S., international organizations (ITU Plenipotentiary in October), etc. The review team must be credible, and to me that very strongly suggests it must be properly international, it must be expert, it must be much broader than a group of ICANN insiders. The AoC isn't the normal bylaws mandated internalized review process. It should have a strong globally representative external element. That said (again), I think it's clear from our own discussions that the ACs and SOs will likely feel they need delegates who are both knowledgeable of their interests and of ICANN's arcane ways so they are fully able to understand what it is they are reviewing. But if we only go this internal route, not only will the team lack credibility, it will most likely lack other skills -- good governance (accountability and transparency) is a specific area of corporate expertise, of academic study, and very importantly, there's a wealth of knowledge the development sector and developing country experts. I'd like to see each SO/AC (basically ALAC, GNSO, ASO, ccNSO and perhaps one from the collective technical ACs) appoint a delegate, and then collectively seek experts from development/corporate/not-for-profit/academic areas to make sure the group is fully representative. Think it's very important that this team is not ICANN insiders, and has an equal number of experts from developing countries. Adam
Alan
At 16/02/2010 06:08 AM, Vanda UOL wrote:
Dear ALAN
Since my personal position would be to have the Chair ( already elected as our representative) to represent the ALAC in this important group, I would like you to rephrase the end of this paragraph below. May be not clear to all not following the document, if this means just that the doc previously suggest both chairs can be the representatives and hasnt suggest to the AC and SO, OR that both CAN have their chairs acting as their representatives and the others NOT. Since the majority of at-large group are not English native, I dont want people reading quickly the text misinterpreting the concept. thanks
The GAC and the Board are given the courtesy of being represented on the review team by their Chair or a delegate (it is unclear when they must decide whether they themselves are participating or replaced by a delegate), but the ACs and SOs are not.
Vanda Scartezini NEXTi_v1.jpg
an ICANN ALS tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 mob:+ 55 11 8181.1464 www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:46 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] URGENT: Process to select ALAC representative to AoC Review Importance: High
I am distributing this on behalf of Cheryl.
Since the last ALAC meeting and the submission of the approved ALAC comments on the Affirmation of Commitments review process, there have been numerous discussions at many levels on the review process. From an At-Large perspective, we need to decide how we will address the selection of one or more people to be candidates for the first review team - the one assessing ICANN's accountability, transparency and support of the interests of global Internet users.
Attached is a document that summarizes the issues and identifies what decision we must make. Because it includes a lot of background information, it is not short. The important issues are listed at the end, and most importantly, it includes a series of steps that we must take WITHOUT DELAY. For your convenience, the text of the document is also appended to this e-mail.
If we do not act quickly, we will lose the ability to effectively participate in the very important review.
PLEASE REVIEW IMMEDIATELY, AND DECIDE IN WHAT WAY YOU NEED TO INVOLVE THE REST OF YOUR RALO SO THAT WE CAN EFFECTIVELY MAKE DECISIONS NEXT WEEK.
Alan
---------------
Proposed ALAC Process for the "endorsement" of candidates responding to the Call for Accountability & Transparency (A&T) Review Team applicants (further to the discussion at the January 26th ALAC Meeting on this matter).
Background
· The Affirmation of Commitments (AoC - http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm) calls for several reviews to be carried out periodically, with the first review being one on ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users (for short Accountability and transparency A&T). The AoC requires that this review be concluded no later than December 31, 2010. · The review team will include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the Chair of the Board of ICANN, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the DOC, representatives of the relevant ICANN Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations and independent experts. · Composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the Chair of the Board of ICANN. · The team composition will be published for public comment, but the draft review proposal does not seem to allow for changes based on these comments. · The Call for Applicants for membership in the review team was issued on January 13, 2010 - http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/call-for-applicants-11jan10-en.p.... · The draft review proposal calls for one representative of the ALAC. - Our comments suggested that one was insufficient. We know that other organizations have made similar comments. At this point there is no indication that it will change, but it may. - Note the term representative defined as a person who has been chosen to act or make decisions on behalf of another person or a group of people. · The draft review proposal requires that any candidate to be considered for the review team be endorsed by the group they are to represent. · The draft review proposal requires that applications be submitted directly to ICANN. - We have been assured that we will receive copies of any such applications. · The original deadline for submitting applications was February 17th at 23:59 UTC with the intent of selecting the final review team by February 20th. The submission deadline has since been extended to February 22nd and we have been told that the deadline for us submitting endorsements is March 1, 2010 at 23:59 UTC. · The call for applications did not allow for any ALAC-specific criteria, but since that time, the GNSO indicated that they may want to collect additional information on their behalf. · Any people who we endorse but who are not selected for the A&T review will be kept on file and may be appointed to a later review without further consultation with us. · The GAC and the Board are given the courtesy of being represented on the review team by their Chair or a delegate (it is unclear when they must decide whether they themselves are participating or replaced by a delegate), but the ACs and SOs are not.
Current Situation
As of February 11th we are told that there have been just two applications.
One is from a Kurt Snyder. He is not currently affiliated with any At-Large entity, but (according to his e-mail to the ALAC Chair I have been looking for ways to volunteer with ICANN and I believe this would be a fantastic opportunity for me. Moreover, my background is well suited for such an endeavor. I am an attorney with technology and assessment experience. Mr. Snyder apparently incorrectly interpreted a reply from the ALAC Chair as implying that we had already formally endorsed him. This has been corrected.
The second is from Christopher Wilkinson, an At-Large participant from Europe. Wolf has sent an e-mail saying that EURALO supports his candidature. Christopher has a long and illustrious history with ICANN. He is a member of EURALO/ISOC Chapter of Wallonia (Belgium) and is a former EU representative to the GAC, former GAC vice-chair, and former Secretary of the GAC.
We have argued that the time-frame is unreasonable, particularly given the hierarchical structure of At-Large, but there is no indication that it will be altered.
It is unclear to what extent our representative, once selected, will be allowed to interact with us once he/she is appointed to the review team.
Although not planned for the purpose, we have an ALAC meeting scheduled for February 23, 2010, a few hours after the close of the application period.
In communications to date, we have assumed that we will publicly post the submitted information of all applicants seeking our endorsements on out wiki/web site (URL to be determined).
Decision Requirements
· Do we wish to endorse all applicants to want to represent us? · If not, how do we select one or more? · Regardless of the above, do we want to indicate an order of preference? · If we do any sort of selection, what criteria do we use? Specifically, how do we recognize the person(s) who we will endorse to represent us. To what extent should prior knowledge of ICANN, prior involvement with ICANN, and prior involvement with the formally defined At-Large Community be factored in? · Given the time frame, to what extent can the entire At-Large Community - the ALSs, RALOs and even the entire ALAC MEANINGFULLY participate? · To what extent do we wish to require ALAC specific information from the candidates? If any, what? Note that the inclusion of the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the US Department of Commerce sets the tone for this group it is a HIGH-level group of people. · To what extent, at this late date, do we issue a further call for applications? · Do we wish our endorsed but not accepted candidates to be held for future reviews? · Do we want to consider the option of equity with the GAC and the Board by allowing our Chair or her/his delegate to participate in the process? Among other merits, it makes the representative responsible to and answerable to the ALAC and implicitly At-Large?
*Immediate Action*
The earliest that we can formally act on these questions is during our ALAC meeting of February 23rd. That will be too late to solicit applications or additional ALAC-specific information.
It is therefore suggested that IMMEDIATELY:
1. All RALOs, through whatever mechanism they choose, should select and forward any preferred candidates to the ALAC and to the designated ICANN address. The earlier this can be done, the better, but if ALAC members will have the time to adequately review the documentation, they must be received no later than the end of February 20th. The candidates must follow the specific requirements specified in the Call for Applicants PLUS must include a statement of why they believe: a. they are in a position to fairly access ICANNs accountability, transparency and the focus on the interests of global Internet users; b. they will be able to do this from the perspective of the global ICANN At-Large Community and the ALAC. 2. All RALOs, through whatever mechanism they choose, decide how their representatives can help the ALAC come to closure on the above decisions on February 23rd. We do NOT have the option of deferring these decisions. If we do not formally make them in a timely manner, we may lose our say in the process of selecting an ALAC representative and we lose our ability to adequately participate in the review. 3. We should schedule a tentative ALAC meeting on Friday, February 26 to finalize our endorsements in case we do not do so at our ALAC meeting on February 23rd.
The following document was sent as an embedded object but not referenced by the email above: Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:b62ff4.jpg (JPEG/«IC») (0042192B) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
participants (3)
-
Adam Peake -
Alan Greenberg -
Vanda UOL